GoodOrigamiMan

Good book; count me in.

Our website is finally ready to be introduced! There are still many improvements to be made on its appearance, but it's fully functional. DrexelObjectivists Any comments are welcome including problems and suggestions! Also, there is a link on the blog that goes to this page: DrexelObjectivists This was the older version of the site without the frameset. I prefer the frameset, so this version of the site will probably be removed... The banner was nice, but it was too big to put on top of another webpage (which is what the frame does). To play fair, it will not look good loaded thru the blog in the frameset - it is best to hold down [shift] so that it opens in its own page.

You can use the same method with any repeating decimal – but you will end up with the fractions that represent them (1/9 for .111111, 2/9 for .222222, etcetera - see below). But just like .99999 these repeating decimals do not equal the fractions or in your case 1. This is because as Rational One said, they are limits, so a repeating decimal is always approaching it’s limit (the fraction or 1) but technically it will never get there. What is happening in the subtraction is you are erasing the indefinite series by subtracting a lower power from a higher one; you are then left with the result and the factor of the power (9). So the answer becomes a fraction – representing the limit (becuase in the process you erased the reapeating) of the repeating decimal. X=.33333333333 repeating 10X = 3.3333333333 repeating 10X - X = 3X 9X = 3 X = 3/9 Therefore .33333333333 repeating = 3/9

I got in some major arguments over this movie with my family, they loved it, I thought it was unbearable to watch. My evaluation was that it was a movie about a guy who: Has no choice where to eat - McDonalds Has no choice when to eat - Breakfast, lunch and dinner, every day Has no choice what to order - I forget the reason why he couldn’t stick to the McSalads... guess there would be no reason for a documentary Has no choice how much to order – one of the rules was he couldn’t decline the supersize question Has no choice how much to eat – had to finish everything every meal For the people who found the movie hilarious, it is all of those *choices* that they are stepping on (demeaning their metaphysical importance). Considering how important choices (free will) are to me – I couldn’t stomach Supersize Me anymore than its protagonist could stomach force feeding himself (both events were easily predictable ). I don’t even think he had a choice to stop the diet... his nutritionist made him! (too bad)

Grammatically it would seem fine to say “the new house is the same as the old one” but it would not be ok to say “the new house is the same house”. In this context the standard for judging the house’s sameness is, (as taken from the definition) whether and entity remains one without addition, change, or discontinuance. This is what we mean when we say “it is the same” – it means that it is what it was and it hasn’t changed in the mean time. However if we are talking about two separate entities, then “same” becomes a way of comparing their attributes, or you can say “same as” which seems to specify such a comparison without the context. I wouldn’t worry about the issue too much, all that is needed is a objective standard – then it is a simple yes or no answer. The root of the house problem I’d say is being unclear about grammar... it isn’t a problem until we start thinking about it.

While I don’t have time to properly respond... I found this useful: And another collective noun: “existence” (as used in existence exists). One question that will come up is - what is the difference between “existence”, as a collective noun, and “universe”? And another question: Is there rule for which concepts may be used as collective nouns, or can they all be used as such?

You can get to by googling Atlas Shrugged "Chicago Tribune"; for me it was the first link.

Joshua, the group of guards imprisoning John Galt where chosen, (I am paraphrasing here) “for their ability to follow orders no matter what, without asking questions”... that is the mentality that made the holocaust possible. The guard in Atlas Shrugged was the moral equivalent of a Nazi in the holocaust. Considering that you condemned Dangy for killing the guard, and in the same paragraph condemned the Nazis, you are a hypocrite. And if you believe, “we should do unto the Nazis as we would have them do unto us” – well then you are insane. oaktree, as for why not shoot the guard from behind a bush. I interpreted as a testament to her not being a cold-blooded killer. She gave the guard the choice.

Have you no shame?

If human life is the standard - evil people are those that destroy it - either directly by initiating force, or indirectly by advocating (implicitly or explicitly) the initiation of force.

Am I correct that easements only apply to access – or so to say: ‘right of way’? An easement is applicable to any right of way scenario – like satellite orbits and radio waves – is it not the same principle involved? Now the company couldn’t have an easement to the lease local condos or buy food from local restaurants and supermarkets – which presumably eco-terrorists could buy as well, then refuse service (this would take exponentially more money and be more insane then the first scenarios – maybe about as possible as me jumping over the ten foot wall Capitalism Forever built around my house, or him dogging a bullet matrix style… his wall, my bullet ). So while a store and road are both private services the difference is that the right of way on the road belongs fundamentally to the travelers who make use of it to access there land, and this is in fact what gives a road -qua road- it’s value. I still find easements a little superfluous because I still don’t know where the line is drawn. Do you have an easement to access the road? To drive on the street? To take the highway? Take this example, if I accessed my land via route A and built a house and claimed the land as my property while I didn’t explicitly claim the whole strip of dirt road back to town thru the only gap in the mountains I have an easement on it, no one can block my access to my land. Now more and more people like my location so I sell of some of my land and the new owners inherit the same easement any land beyond mine either go around my land, get permission to go thru mine (granting an easement – which I guess becomes lasting whether I like it or not). Someone paves the road and starts charging tolls*. Then we get so many people that a high speed tunnel is built that is much more direct and the owner charges a toll – this is now route B. Then there is and earthquake and route A becomes unusable. Do the people of the town now have a right to use route B? I don’t think so. This would be the same principle for an airline, buss company, or any ‘secondary’ means of access – created before use, for profit, and owned exclusively. *On the matter of tolls what would be the relationship between the right to access the road and the toll on the road? Would property owners not need to pay tolls for the street in front of their house if they didn’t want to?

A brick wall is blocking me if I want to reach the other side – regardless of whether or not I have the right. Blocking qua blocking isn’t illegal – I think you would concede that I could legally block you from entering my house.

Japan

I considered that but dismissed it because “blocking” could either be active or passive. Meaning I could build a big wall around your property, or I could have a big wall and sell you the property in the middle without an easement. I still hold fast that the latter case is not a rights violation.

Betsy, I agree with what you are saying – I’m just trying to figure out if I was more wrong or not right. So in regards to what Bryan said at the begging of this thread, The answer to this depends* on whether, A: there was a easement or contract. Or in absence of either, B: whether or not the property doing to blocking was previously used for travel. ? If someone used a road to access his land and then that road was made unavailable or blocked – that would be violation of this rights via a non-contractual but inherent easement. This would also be the case for the land in-between the road and the house, albeit private property the rights remain to the original owner (the person or people who used it productively) and new owners could not come in then deny passage. Fair enough, and you can put it in writing just to be sure, makes sense. Now if you buy a house that was accessed by a road you retain the same easement since it is attached to the property. And once again, having it in writing is a good thing. My last question, unless you spark another one, is: Can you think of any circumstance where a person could block another man’s property, or access to, without violating his rights? *I'm assuming there is a 'yes' answer to my last questoin.